Duty To Assist Or Requirements Of Ro's Job Descripition

[ruby]

I have looked but can't find what I am looking for.

Does duty to assist also mean if you apply for one thing and thats not the correct application for what your applying for, are the RO's or whom ever suppose to assist you in what your really applying for rather then a straight denial. If that makes sense.

Ex: I applied for arthritis as secondary to my current arthritis (degenerative) which is kinda right--if I over use a nsc part of my body then I have to rest the nsc forcing me to use the sc parts which now makes these areas worse. They go hand in hand.

Ex: the SI joints etc are documented as reactive, you can show that it started in the service. When you applied for the SI joints under secondary do they have to look at your request and notify you that its not correct and you need to file for a new sc or not.

Is this in the M21-1?

[john999]

Ruby

Don't expect the VA to get it right if you don't have your claim in order. These guys can hardly add 2+2=4. If you make it easy for them they will deny you. You need to spell it out for them so they cannot screw it up.

[danang_1969]

Ruby

Don't expect the VA to get it right if you don't have your claim in order. These guys can hardly add 2+2=4. If you make it easy for them they will deny you. You need to spell it out for them so they cannot screw it up.

Right John and most of the time they will say as little as possible in the SSOC to prevent the veteran from countering their errors. It took me 10 years on PTSD claim to get them to write on the SSOC to allow me be able to see which page they were on and sure nuff, they were a year and half off with dates and duty stations and they had a multitude of documents to say otherwise. Was not recognizing the stressors or the individual awards, or the duty stations.

That proves to me they don't look at it most of the time. They got a form rubber stamp letter that says:

Veteran failed to show a connection between his condition and his military service.

The reason they keep it short is this is what they would have to write on my hearing loss of they considered all the evidence I have submitted.

Here is an example of what they would have to write if they considered all the evidence on my hearing loss claim.

Veteran was on-board ship in 1967-68. He has a buddy letter from veteran during same time frame, they worked together in the same job, same ship, this veteran with the buddy letter is 90% service connected with a high frequency hearing loss from the same period and the same ship. The veteran has a second buddy letter who was on the same type ship and around the same extreme noise. This veteran is service connected on a high frequency hearing loss. The veteran submitted a letter from a Naval Officer admitting prior to 1980, the Navy had no regulations in place to prevent such or require hearing protection to furnished. The veteran has submitted a hearing test from a certified audiologist that says he has a high frequency hearing loss from acoustical trauma (loud noise) and needs to see a ear, nose and throat specialist because he a conductive component in both ears. He has also submitted a sample chart of how a high frequency hearing loss would look and it looks like the veterans. We cannot give the veteran an appointment with the ear, nose and throat specialist because our VA hearing test examiner said he did have a hearing loss but it was not from acoustical trauma. Therefore tinnitus and hearing loss is denied because the veteran failed to show a connection between his tinnitus and his military service. What a crock huh. They are not going to write the truth. That is why they keep it short.

Danang_1969

Edited January 16, 2008 by danang_1969

[ruby]

thanks guys, but I looking for regs that I can use against them for not assisting me in my claim.

If I wrote it up wrong and they have a duty to get it right, then I can use that against them should I need to take it to the BVA level or higher.

I think I am screwed but I am going to try. They are primarily denying based on 3.307 where is says a dx within 1 year which I don't have, I was missed diagnosised for 32 years.